| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191004131432.GA9498@pauld.bos.csb>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 09:14:32 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Xuewei Zhang <xueweiz@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
trivial@...nel.org, Neel Natu <neelnatu@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: scale quota and period without losing
quota/period ratio precision
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:05:56PM -0700 Xuewei Zhang wrote:
> +cc neelnatu@...gle.com and haoluo@...gle.com, they helped a lot
> for this issue. Sorry I forgot to include them when sending out the patch.
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:55 PM Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:12:43PM -0700 Xuewei Zhang wrote:
> > > quota/period ratio is used to ensure a child task group won't get more
> > > bandwidth than the parent task group, and is calculated as:
> > > normalized_cfs_quota() = [(quota_us << 20) / period_us]
> > >
> > > If the quota/period ratio was changed during this scaling due to
> > > precision loss, it will cause inconsistency between parent and child
> > > task groups. See below example:
> > > A userspace container manager (kubelet) does three operations:
> > > 1) Create a parent cgroup, set quota to 1,000us and period to 10,000us.
> > > 2) Create a few children cgroups.
> > > 3) Set quota to 1,000us and period to 10,000us on a child cgroup.
> > >
> > > These operations are expected to succeed. However, if the scaling of
> > > 147/128 happens before step 3), quota and period of the parent cgroup
> > > will be changed:
> > > new_quota: 1148437ns, 1148us
> > > new_period: 11484375ns, 11484us
> > >
> > > And when step 3) comes in, the ratio of the child cgroup will be 104857,
> > > which will be larger than the parent cgroup ratio (104821), and will
> > > fail.
> > >
> > > Scaling them by a factor of 2 will fix the problem.
> >
> > I have no issues with the concept. We went around a bit about the actual
> > numbers and made it an approximation.
> >
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2e8e19226398 ("sched/fair: Limit sched_cfs_period_timer() loop to avoid hard lockup")
> > > Signed-off-by: Xuewei Zhang <xueweiz@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 83ab35e2374f..b3d3d0a231cd 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -4926,20 +4926,28 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_period_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > if (++count > 3) {
> > > u64 new, old = ktime_to_ns(cfs_b->period);
> > >
> > > - new = (old * 147) / 128; /* ~115% */
> > > - new = min(new, max_cfs_quota_period);
> > > -
> > > - cfs_b->period = ns_to_ktime(new);
> > > -
> > > - /* since max is 1s, this is limited to 1e9^2, which fits in u64 */
> > > - cfs_b->quota *= new;
> > > - cfs_b->quota = div64_u64(cfs_b->quota, old);
> > > -
> > > - pr_warn_ratelimited(
> > > - "cfs_period_timer[cpu%d]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us %lld, cfs_quota_us = %lld)\n",
> > > - smp_processor_id(),
> > > - div_u64(new, NSEC_PER_USEC),
> > > - div_u64(cfs_b->quota, NSEC_PER_USEC));
> > > + /*
> > > + * Grow period by a factor of 2 to avoid lossing precision.
> > > + * Precision loss in the quota/period ratio can cause __cfs_schedulable
> > > + * to fail.
> > > + */
> > > + new = old * 2;
> > > + if (new < max_cfs_quota_period) {
> >
> > I don't like this part as much. There may be a value between
> > max_cfs_quota_period/2 and max_cfs_quota_period that would get us out of
> > the loop. Possibly in practice it won't matter but here you trigger the
> > warning and take no action to keep it from continuing.
> >
> > Also, if you are actually hitting this then you might want to just start at
> > a higher but proportional quota and period.
>
> I'd like to do what you suggested. A quick idea would be to scale period to
> max_cfs_quota_period, and scale quota proportionally. However the naive
> implementation won't work under this edge case:
> original:
> quota: 500,000us period: 570,000us
> after scaling:
> quota: 877,192us period: 1,000,000us
> original ratio: 919803
> new ratio: 919802
>
> To do this right, the code would have to keep an eye out on the precision loss,
> and increase quota by 1us sometimes to cancel out the precision loss.
>
> Also, I think this case is not that important. Because if we are
> hitting this case, that
> suggests the period is already >0.5s. And if we are still hitting
> timeouts with a 0.5s
> period, scaling it to 1s probably won't help much.
> When this happens, I'd imagine the parent cgroup would have a LOT of child
> cgroups. It might make sense for the userspace to create the parent cgroup with
> 1s period.
>
> If you think automatically scaling 0.5s+ to 1s is still important, I'm
> happy to stash
> this patch, and send in another one that handles the 0.5+s -> 1s
> scaling the right
> way. :) Thanks!
First let me understand your use case better. I was thinking about this more last
night and it doesn't make sense.
You are setting a small quota and period on the parent cgroup and then setting the
same small quota and period on the child. As you say to keep the child from getting
more quota than the parent. But that should already be the case simply by setting
it on the parent. The child can't get more quota than the parent. All this does
is make the kernel do more work handling more period timers and such.
Setting the child quota/period only makes sense when setting it smaller than
the parent.
Also, in order to hit this problem you need to have many hundreds of children, in
my experience. In that case it makes even less sense to write the same quota/preiod
as the parent into each of the children.
Or there is something else causing the timer to take too long to run...
I agree that if we are taking > 1/2s to run do_sched_cfs_period_timer() it may
not matter, as I said above.
Cheers,
Phil
>
> Best regards,
> Xuewei
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
> >
> > > + cfs_b->period = ns_to_ktime(new);
> > > + cfs_b->quota *= 2;
> > > +
> > > + pr_warn_ratelimited(
> > > + "cfs_period_timer[cpu%d]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us = %lld, cfs_quota_us = %lld)\n",
> > > + smp_processor_id(),
> > > + div_u64(new, NSEC_PER_USEC),
> > > + div_u64(cfs_b->quota, NSEC_PER_USEC));
> > > + } else {
> > > + pr_warn_ratelimited(
> > > + "cfs_period_timer[cpu%d]: period too short, but cannot scale up without losing precision (cfs_period_us = %lld, cfs_quota_us = %lld)\n",
> > > + smp_processor_id(),
> > > + div_u64(old, NSEC_PER_USEC),
> > > + div_u64(cfs_b->quota, NSEC_PER_USEC));
> > > + }
> > >
> > > /* reset count so we don't come right back in here */
> > > count = 0;
> > > --
> > > 2.23.0.581.g78d2f28ef7-goog
> > >
> >
> > --
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists